Bermuda Bowl

[OSH]

In chess, if you are really great you don't need to prepare against your opponents preparation at all, you can find the refutation during the game.

Without entering the main topic of your post, this is not true.

In chess you need a lot of preparation against your opponent, especially at high level. You need to know for example the (monthly) openings' updating.

In 80s, during the WC between Kasparov and Karpov, both had supporting people studying the preferred openings of the opponent. When Bobby Fisher came back to play, he lost some matches because his "opening library" was not updated.

In present time i think it is still worse, with strong pc programs that can do a big part of the work.

 

Marco

[hrothgar]

If 5% of the players want the rules to be one way and the other 95% want them to be another way, why cater to the 5%?

Comment 1: The easiest response is to bring up the notion of "Tyranny of the Majority". Most democratic societies recognize that a system of checks and balances is necessary to constrain the great unwashed masses. With this said and done, the legal construct is typically invoked for "serious" issues (Civil rights, lynchings, that sort of thing). Even I would agree that invoking this analogy to protect the freedom to play Regres trivializes an important legal concept.

 

Comment 2: The fact that a large number of people agree on something does not actually make it correct. Case in point: A recent Pew poll shows that a plurality - 42% - of American's believe in that Creationism is literal truth. This does not mean that Creationism is true. It does, however, make me question the reliability of trusting large groups of Americans to reach intelligent conclusions.

 

Comment 3: Its unclear to me where your 95% figure is coming from. While this might hold true in ACBL land, I doubt that its indicative of world wide opinion. Brown Sticker Conventions and HUMs are in widespread use outside North America. The ACBL is one of many Zonal authorities. Based on the most recent figures publish by the WBF, the ACBL makes up slightly less than 25% of the total membership base. In contrast, Europeans make up 56% of the membership. The next largest block is the Pacific, coming in at approximately 10%, followed by the South Pacific with 5% or so. All of these Zones feature much more liberal sets of convention regulations than North America. Given the expectation of large contractions in the ACBL's membership base in the coming years, these figures should favor the Europeans even more. I recognize that the ACBL has an expectation that the WBF should cater to its whims, however, the demographics don't justify special treatment.

[fred]

Comment 2: The fact that a large number of people agree on something does not actually make it correct. Case in point: A recent Pew poll shows that a plurality - 42% - of American's believe in that Creationism is literal truth. This does not mean that Creationism is true. It does, however, make me question the reliability of trusting large groups of Americans to reach intelligent conclusions.

The goal is not to find out what constitutes "truth". It is to define the rules of a game such that the enjoyment level of the participants is maximized.

 

Like you, I don't trust large groups of people (American or otherwise) to come to sensible conclusions on matters of "fact", but this is not about a matter of fact - it is about what people want. People want whatever it is they want, regardless of whether or not someone else considers it "intelligent" to want that.

 

About the 95% number, I just made it up of course. I have no idea what the number really is. What if 95% is accurate? Are you really advocating making the game less enjoyable for that big a majority in order to satisfy the desires of a small minority of players? What if the number was 99%? What if only 1 bridge player in the whole world wanted the rules to be a certain way? I think that at some point you have to admit that it is right to cater to the masses (especially if you want people to continue to play the game).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[EricK]

For very many situations the majority of people are generally in favour of the status quo. So if they are in a situation where very few methods are allowed they would vote to continue that, but if they were in a place were lots of methods were allowed they would vote for that. What this shows is that while people may know what they are happy with, they may not be as good at determining what they would also be happy with (or maybe even happier with) if some changes were made.

 

Fred seems happy with the rules in North America. But I bet if he had lived and played bridge all his life in Australia he would be happy with the Australian rules.

 

One problem bridge faces is that is a worldwide game played with local rules. This may very well change if internet bridge continues its rise. But as things stand you have the ridiculous situation of people qualifying for a competition playing methods which both they and the teams they beat are perfectly happy with, and yet not being allowed to use those same methods in the supposedly higher standard tournament they have qualified for.

 

Eric

[hrothgar]

About the 95% number, I just made it up of course. I have no idea what the number really is. What if 95% is accurate? Are you really advocating making the game less enjoyable for that big a majority in order to satisfy the desires of a small minority of players? What if the number was 99%? What if only 1 bridge player in the whole world wanted the rules to be a certain way? I think that at some point you have to admit that it is right to cater to the masses (especially if you want people to continue to play the game).

I certainly agree that mass market forms of entertainment need to cater to the specific needs of their customer base. There's all sorts of debate in the "literature" regarding whether its more important to be targeting the median as opposed to lead users. With this said and done, I think that most marketing types would love to be able to perfectly meet the needs of 95% of their membership base.

 

However, I think that we'd both agree that neither the ACBL nor the WBF is particularly good at surveying the opinions of the membership...

[Gerben42]

It is to define the rules of a game such that the enjoyment level of the participants is maximized.

 

While this might be the case for low level tournaments enjoyment should not be the first thing in mind when constructing rules for the Bermuda Bowl.

 

Take for example the pair who play the Brown Sticker openings AND overcalls. They are used to playing these methods, they are allowed in any tournament of interesting level in their home country, yet they cannot play this in the Bermuda Bowl.

 

And the overcalls of 1♣ are ONLY considered Brown Sticker after a std. American 1♣ opening bid but not after an opening bid that shows only 2♣ although this an almost equal opening bid, or a Standard Polish opening bid.

 

As it is now, one can play any convention you like against 1♣ "standard Polish", but not any convention you like against 1♣ "standard American". This can't be fair.

 

If there are NO system restrictions at the highest level then it makes sure that everyone is on equal grounds. This is the fairest solution for everyone.

[mike777]

About the 95% number, I just made it up of course. I have no idea what the number really is. What if 95% is accurate? Are you really advocating making the game less enjoyable for that big a majority in order to satisfy the desires of a small minority of players? What if the number was 99%? What if only 1 bridge player in the whole world wanted the rules to be a certain way? I think that at some point you have to admit that it is right to cater to the masses (especially if you want people to continue to play the game).

I certainly agree that mass market forms of entertainment need to cater to the specific needs of their customer base. There's all sorts of debate in the "literature" regarding whether its more important to be targeting the median as opposed to lead users. With this said and done, I think that most marketing types would love to be able to perfectly meet the needs of 95% of their membership base.

 

With this said and done, I think that we'd both agree that neither the ACBL nor the WBF is particularly good at surveying the opinions of the membership...

Well the membership is not too good at telling the leadership what they want. Either that or they simply do not care enough about any change.

 

Case in point was my earlier post of a survey of South Calif. membership on local issues affecting them directly. Less than 1% responded to a series of questions over a 3 month polling period.

 

Of course as I stated in my above posts, should leadership lead or simply follow the expressed desires of the majority on this HUM issue?

 

1) Perhaps the great silence means there is no great desire for change on this issue?

2) Perhaps the masses need to be lead? Example there was no great demand for 24 hour sports network but once it was offered we cannot live without it :P.

[DrTodd13]

Comment 2: The fact that a large number of people agree on something does not actually make it correct.  Case in point: A recent Pew poll shows that a plurality - 42% - of American's believe in that Creationism is literal truth.  This does not mean that Creationism is true.  It does, however, make me question the reliability of trusting large groups of Americans to reach intelligent conclusions.

The goal is not to find out what constitutes "truth". It is to define the rules of a game such that the enjoyment level of the participants is maximized.

 

Like you, I don't trust large groups of people (American or otherwise) to come to sensible conclusions on matters of "fact", but this is not about a matter of fact - it is about what people want. People want whatever it is they want, regardless of whether or not someone else considers it "intelligent" to want that.

 

About the 95% number, I just made it up of course. I have no idea what the number really is. What if 95% is accurate? Are you really advocating making the game less enjoyable for that big a majority in order to satisfy the desires of a small minority of players? What if the number was 99%? What if only 1 bridge player in the whole world wanted the rules to be a certain way? I think that at some point you have to admit that it is right to cater to the masses (especially if you want people to continue to play the game).

The majority is always unstoppable. Rules and constitutions cannot stop them because they can simply ignore the rules or change the constitution. Who can prevent it since they are the majority? Truth, right and wrong do exist but they are not defined by the majority. They are largely irrelevant because the majority will define their own false "truth." I personally find the viewpoint that society or a game should be modified for the maximum enjoyment of the most people to be highly offensive. I'd rather have a set of unchanging consistent rules even if I didn't like some of the consequences than a situation in which everyone is fighting to get their own agendas codified in the laws. I guess this opinion comes from being perpetually abnormal and always being in the minority. I might offer though that the initial developers of the rules were closer to the pure "right and wrong" versus "what rules would make people happy." If we took a vote on 40A, do we believe that most people would vote to retain the right to psyche when most people themselves never ever psyche and only get upset when people do it against them?

[fred]

Sorry Todd, but I don't understand your post.

 

Bridge is a game. The purpose of games is to provide enjoyment for those who play them. What could possibly be offensive about designing a game so that those who play it will enjoy it as much as possible?

 

I would actually go as far as to say it is a practical necessity for the people who make the rules of games to be concerned about such things. If people don't enjoy playing a particular game then they will find something else to do with their time.

 

How can concepts like "truth" apply to the rules of games (which are arbitrary)?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Free]

Sorry Todd, but I don't understand your post.

 

Bridge is a game. The purpose of games is to provide enjoyment for those who play them. What could possibly be offensive about designing a game so that those who play it will enjoy it as much as possible?

 

I would actually go as far as to say it is a practical necessity for the people who make the rules of games to be concerned about such things. If people don't enjoy playing a particular game then they will find something else to do with their time.

 

How can concepts like "truth" apply to the rules of games (which are arbitrary)?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

While I totally agree that bridge is a game and should be fun, when playing games at top level they're not for fun, they're for competition and money. Look at any sport, any game, any whatever I've forgotten: you'll see the same principle over and over again: at top sport it's about winning, not 'fun'. What's fun about running 42km alone? What's fun about tennis when you have to concentrate 100% for every point? What's fun in the pain during every training? (ok, some people just like pain, but that's not the point)

 

Topsport = competition

Topsport != enjoyment

 

So when defining the regulations for the players who want to enjoy, go ahead, restrict systems and conventions to protect the fun of the game, and what most people want. But when it comes to top competition, imo there's no need to ban any system or convention.

Over time, perhaps people all together will find perfect systems and defenses and the game will be fun since they'll all play the same system - that perfect one :P

[Brandal]

° If the matches are 16 boards or fewer, HUM systems and Brown Sticker Conventions will be prohibited.

 

° If the matches are longer (17-20 boards)

• HUM systems are still prohibited

Brown Sticker Conventions will be permitted, with a maximum of three per pair

 

During the Knockout stage of the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup

HUM systems or Brown Sticker Conventions will be authorized for use in the knockout stage in both the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup provided additional, separate convention cards, including proposed defences are submitted in full accordance with the systems regulations published in the Supplemental Conditions of Contest.

 

• Special seating restrictions will be in force for pairs using Brown Sticker Conventions or HUM Systems at any stage.

 

....

 

Roland

I'm not trying to be a "smartass" here,I genuinly want someone's

opinion as to why:

 

Those who say prohibiting psyches is some other game similar

to bridge,why is prohibiting another part of bridge,like HUM/

Brown Sticker etc still considered bridge and not some similar

game?

 

ty in advance

 

Frode

[the hog]

Thats not being a smart arse. I think that is a perfectly legitimate question. One thing though, psyches are explicitely allowed in the rules; then again are Brown Stickers explicitely prohibited????

[Brandal]

Bridge is a game.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

You say it so well Fred :)

 

Yes,a game,and all games have a set of rules,

and most games have the same set of rules worldwide

and is understandable to those who take interest in the game.

 

With bridge I feel that a minority wants "anarchy",anything

goes and if you don't have a defense who cares?

 

This makes bridge less about skill and more about fooling

eachother in my opinion,that kid in the Simpsons yelling

"haaa haaa" comes to mind :D

 

I'm neither a top nor a bottom player,but I only play for

fun these days,with a dash of competition thrown in,and

it's neither fun nor competition to be railroaded by some

clever pair who knows something I don't.

 

I have always looked at bridge as communication,who knows,

maybe that's why it's called bridge.....where I first and foremost

listen to my side,while picking up som intelligence reports from

the "enemy" and based on all information,take action.

 

What a rant.....my bottomline is the more weird systems,

it's not about fun for all 4 at the table anymore,only for 2.

 

:)

[Brandal]

Thats not being a smart arse. I think that is a perfectly legitimate question. One thing though, psyches are explicitely allowed in the rules; then again are Brown Stickers explicitely prohibited????

I enjoy a good psyche against me :)

 

I just don't like psyching :D

 

 

maybe HUM/BS are implicitly prohibited? :)

[1eyedjack]

My 2 euros' worth:

 

The rules are optimised when the reward for the deployment of skill is proportionate to the skill deployed.

 

Skill can be applied in several areas of the game, two of which are of particular relevance to this discussion:

 

1) Skill can be applied in system design, whether it be offensive, pre-emptive or in defence.

 

2) Skill can be applied in the exercise of judgement and analytical techniques within the constraints of restrictions set out by the sponsoring organisation.

 

At one extreme, there is plenty of scope for the exercise of skill in the exercise of judgement in a regime with a highly restrictive structure of permitted systems.

 

At the other extreme, there is plenty of scope for the exercise of skill in the development of systems.

 

You only get the best of both worlds if you can successfully argue that each extreme can be satisfied without compromising the pursuit of the other.

 

If you played rubber bridge in the Portland Club in England you would be permitted almost no conventional agreements. It is not the game for me, but I would be the first to acknowledge that there is a clear hierarchy of competence amongst those who play in that environment, and who doubtless enjoy the experience. A brilliant player would surely gravitate to the top of that hierarchy, but any lesser display of skill within the constraints applied would carry no such guarantee. It is not the game for me because it grants no recognition whatsoever of the skill in system design, in which field I feel that I have some competence and would welcome the opportunity to test my mettle.

 

If you played in an environment in which anything goes, the effectiveness of the methods that you employ are largely dependent on the effectiveness of the defensive methods pre-prepared by your opponents against those methods. The effectiveness of your methods against the theoretical optimal defence is of academic interest. Indeed in a world in which the game evolved to such a degree that an "optimal" system (against optimum defensive methods) arrived at a consensus of agreement, you would be well advised (regulations permitting) to adopt some other method that is theoretically sub-optimal but in practice likely to encounter opponents less well prepared. That practical advantage will outweigh any theoretical advantage, and the opportunities for engineering that possibility are pretty much guaranteed by the vast number of available methods which, although sub-optimal, at least have some theoretical merit not too far removed from the optimum.

 

It has been suggested by others in separate threads within these forums and elsewhere that it is possible to develop "default" defensive methods for use against unprepared situations. Clearly a serious pair should develop that avenue. However the default defensive methods are by definition unlikely to be optimal, and it remains of dubious merit to permit (in the interests of evolution) the proliferation of methods that are effective against default methods and against the ill prepared but ineffective against optimal defence.

 

There is, therefore, a case for regulation, ie to permit the exercise of skill in both fields without (excessively) stifling the exercise of skill in either field. Any such regulation will inevitably require a compromise between the rewards for skill in those two fields set out at the beginning of this message.

 

The placement of that compromise depends upon the population subjected to the regulation, and it may well be that there need be no conflict between the popular wishes of the players and the interests of the game. At club level in an event containing 2-board rounds a restrictive regime may (1) be popular and (2) be a regime with the most suitable compromise that rewards appropriate skill. At international level in an event comprising long matches, with advance notice of systems and an opportunity to prepare, a more relaxed regime may be popular and a more suitable compromise.

 

It has been suggested elsewhere that those responsible for setting the regulations have a conflict of interests. The argument goes that they are appointed officials but ultimately responsible to a democratic electorate. Ultimately they have a vested interest in maximising the population of their electorate, which will largely comprise club players who perhaps are unable to see the bigger picture, which is: the benefits to the game and likely influx of new blood arising from high profile success and vivacity at the top of the game, whose players operate to different priorities.

 

I am not sure where all this is leading. There is a case for regulation. The optimum regulation depends on the target audience but could be separately customised for each target level. The wishes of the target audience will vary according to their level. Their level may not be reflected in their influence on the regulators, but separating regulations according to the targeted audiences should overcome that problem except for one minor defect: opportunities for preparing for an event in one target sphere may be limited to events in a lesser target sphere in which more restrictive regulations apply.

[the hog]

So Brandal and Jack, using the marathon analogy postulated earlier, I assume both of you would be happy with, (in Richard's words), forcing people to skip in the marathon rather than allowing them to run.

 

If you want regulation to protect the Ma and Pa Kettles in their club duplicate, then fine, I have no problem with that at all. But for heaven's sake, we are talking about the top echelon here.

 

Going back to Fred's 95% figure, which he admits he pulled out of a hat, I wonder what percentage of particpants would have no objection to any BSCs or Hums being allowed. I suspect it would be a pretty high percnetage. The major problem is that there is a real inertia at the top levels of administration against any change.

[1eyedjack]

So .... Jack, using the marathon analogy postulated earlier, I assume .... you would be happy with, (in Richard's words), forcing people to skip in the marathon rather than allowing them to run.

Not particularly, and that was certainly not the gist of my post, although if there were an event in which skipping 26 miles in the shortest time qualified you for a gold medal then I would be happy to grant respect to someone who gained first place in that event.

[the hog]

Actually there is a farily easy compromise solution. Why not have 2 events at the BB?

 

1). A restricted event where everyone has to play exactly the same system - lets say Buller, where you bid what you think you can make. We would ban opening 1m on a 2 or 3 card suit as that is too dificult to cope with. Stayman also gets banned of course, as you need not have Cs to make that bid.

 

2). An open event where anything goes.

 

Countries can field teams in either or both events. Hmm, it would be interesting to see in which one Meckwell chose to play.

[akhare]

Suppose that:

 

- A marathon runner invents a special new pair of shoes designed primarily to make the other runners get cramps in their legs.

Hi Fred,

 

In my experience, cramps in a marathon can only be self inflicted:). Besides, causing cramps in the opps. legs is par for the course in bridge -- indeed, there is a reason why a plethora of preempts exist.

 

As Free noted, competition at the highest echelons of any game can hardly be expected to be for pure "fun". Banning conventions that rattle one’s cage is like participating in a marathon where’s there is cap on participants whose VO2 max exceeds one’s own. A win in such an event would only be a pyrrhic one.

 

While I do see the need for some regulation, I don't think that arbitrarily banning conventions that run against the grain of one's aesthitics is healthy for bridge in the long run.

 

Atul

[Flame]

I love special systems, i like to play them and like to watch them, i believe its a huge problem if good systems are blocked but i totally agree with fred that the contest must not be decided by who's coatches did better job at prepering defences structures. I think more work should be done with defence generalization, I guess it wont be done because new systems are blocked and therefore not need defence so we have a egg and chiken situation...

[Brandal]

So Brandal and Jack, using the marathon analogy postulated earlier, I assume both of you would be happy with, (in Richard's words), forcing people to skip in the marathon rather than allowing them to run.

 

If you want regulation to protect the Ma and Pa Kettles in their club duplicate, then fine, I have no problem with that at all. But for heaven's sake, we are talking about the top echelon here.

 

Going back to Fred's 95% figure, which he admits he pulled out of a hat, I wonder what percentage of particpants would have no objection to any BSCs or Hums being allowed. I suspect it would be a pretty high percnetage. The major problem is that there is a real inertia at the top levels of administration against any change.

I don't know any other way to make bridge a fair game Hog?

 

Either everyone skips or everyone runs is what I would be

happy with.

 

As long as there are different bridgefederations with extremely

different rules as to what goes,I don't see this happening.

 

I wish there was ONE set of rules worldwide that was used

whether it was national or international events?

 

I don't think the game is fair anymore when a pair comes to

the BB and has changed or modified or added to their already

highly unusual system....do you?

 

So no Hog,I wouldn't be happy forcing anyone to skip,or one

who likes skipping to run.....

 

What I want is fair game,enjoyment for 4 people at the table

not just 2. B)

 

Let me throw a Q back at you,why is it so important to you

to have unusual systems when "half the world" doesn't have

a proper defense and doesn't know or have the resources

or time or "interest" to cope with them?

Fred points out even at the top level this is very demanding

and cost a lot of time and money so I guess it's even harder

for the average player?

 

How much enjoyment will you be deprived if some of the most

unusual methods were prohibited?

 

As much as I appreciate your points and others too,and in

a perfect world everyone would have time and energy to learn

all the methods there are available,but this just isn't the case.

 

:)

[pclayton]

Fred:I really appreciate what you do around here, but I agree with Richard and Ron on this one.

 

Bridge IS a game, but it is also a competition. On one hand you have those that want systemic freedom, but this can come at the price of a majority that is unprepared for unfamiliar methods, which reduces their enjoyment of the 'game'. These two objectives are mutually exclusive.

 

It is a logical progression on one hand to hold an I/N game that has maximum protection against the unusual stuff. OTOH, at the highest levels of 'competition', I would argue that there shouldn't be any protection against unfamiliar methods, except for pre-disclosure.

 

If HUM methods are effective, then adopt them yourself. If HUM methods aren't effective, then welcome their use. If they are purely destructive (hard to argue this on any level) then HUM users are trading 'equity' for 'variance' as well as capitalizing on their opponents relative unpreparedness.

[Brandal]

but this can come at the price of a majority that is unprepared for unfamiliar methods, which reduces their enjoyment of the 'game'.

I'd go as far as saying it also reduces the value of the competition.

 

Almost like allowing one hockey team to wear all their protective

gear and the other team no protection unless each player sits down

and makes his own gear B)

[EricK]

The simple fact is that "the majority" is unprepared for much of the stuff that is actually allowed. If they enjoy the game depsite not understanding the conventions which are currently allowed, why shouldn't they still enjoy it if more stuff is allowed?

[Brandal]

The simple fact is that "the majority" is unprepared for much of the stuff that is actually allowed. If they enjoy the game depsite not understanding the conventions which are currently allowed, why shouldn't they still enjoy it if more stuff is allowed?

Not sure if you reply to my post,but my point is as

long as a method or system isn't allowed everywhere,

it will favor someone somewhere,and that is not

my idea of a fair-game-may-the-best-pair-win philosophy.

 

I'm not saying "they" can't still enjoy the game,

for me bidding is just a tool to try find our best contract,

how we get there is less important than playing there,

and declare/defend is what I find most interesting in bridge

and I guess that is why I'm rather "indifferent" to many

of the methods/gadgets/systems that are highly unusual.